"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Archbishop Lefebvre Quotes By Subject

Archbishop Lefebvre Quotes By Subject

Great resource on the Archbishop speaking on a wide variety of topics...

Quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre:

Before one begins to read these great, clear words of the Archbishop, please keep in mind the praise his private theologian at the Second Vatican Council, Fr. Berto, said of him: "Archbishop
Lefebvre is a theologian, and by far superior to his own theologian,
and God grant that all the [Council] Fathers might be theologians to the
same degree as he is! He has a perfectly sure and refined theological habitus,
to which his very great devotion to the Holy See adds that
connaturality that allows him, even before discursive thinking
intervenes, to discern intuitively what is and what is not compatible
with the prerogatives of the Rock of the Church."

1) On The New Mass-“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith.
This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new
faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I
may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)

-“I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Conference April 11, 1990)

-“The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)

-“It
is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is
not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes.
It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious
that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer
to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)

-“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)

-“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd
idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The
Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of
heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no
one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our
faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei;
they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New
Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but
are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the
Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox
Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)

-“… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It
is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice
between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to
Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So,
it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new
rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist!
It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them
questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other
religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest
himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant
manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why
it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)

-"This
union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the
Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union
can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new]
rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are
bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments
that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and
the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the
seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29,
1976)

-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman
Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the
modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)

-“Your
perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a
sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any
other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple:
these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover
apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the
participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith
or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and
respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations
since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears
within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)

-“The
current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the
Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works
that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because
the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts
that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize,
reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)

-“We
must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms
of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of
the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the
ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the
changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with
Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the
liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass!
Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical
reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible—which is sold in the
bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant
influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

-“…if
they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and
become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the
New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some
accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of
the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a
month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New
Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...I reply: Just
because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you
if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that,
little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish.
They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic
and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have
modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new
conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical
effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat.
There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our
faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to
them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil.
Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this
atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not
go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)

“The
consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church,
inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the
spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)

“…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this
diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They
wanted to be ecumenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to
the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no
longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave.This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (Conference at Econe, June 24, 1981)

2) On the Vatican II Council-“The
more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one
analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more
one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a
few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain
Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole
new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly
different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A
total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no
idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows
(who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy
Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small
errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of
philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line
of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)

-“…it
is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes
by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any
part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many
satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as
cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of
meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)

-“We
believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of
Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins
and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

-“It
is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the
Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and
thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

-“Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true!
Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms
they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council!
It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the
reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms
are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by
Rome!” (Conference, May 11, 1976)

-“This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)

-“This
reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is
entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if
all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any
faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or
to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only
attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a
categorical refusal to accept the reform.” (Declaration of Faith, November 21, 1974)

-“We
can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome
which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice
of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.” (October 13, 1974)

-“The
Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired
values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

3) On Freemasonry in the Church-“We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism.
John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service
of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all
of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels,
any Catholic revival.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)

-“If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given in 1978)

-"The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs,
the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out
even within His Mystical Body here below. ... This is what has brought
down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs.
This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the
destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation
of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove." (Letter to the Future Bishops, August 29, 1987)

-“So
we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been
condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)

-“Instead
of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those
fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side.
"After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be
divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are
not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They
are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands
with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church.
So they are doing the devil's work.” (Two Years After the Consecration, September 6, 1990)

-“We
are dealing with people who have a different philosophy to ours, a
different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist
philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. That is a totally Masonic concept. This is really the destruction of the Faith.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

-“A non-aggressive agreement has been made between the Church and masonry. It was covered up by calling it aggiornamento, reaching out to the world, ecumenism.” (Le Figaro, August 2, 1976)

-“There were direct contacts precisely between Cardinal Bea and the Masonic Lodge
here in New York and in Washington, with the B'nai Brith, the Jewish
Lodge numbering 75,000 members, and with the lodges of the whole world.
Why did these contacts take place? Why did Cardinal Bea come in the name
of the Vatican, in the name of Rome, to meet these Freemasons? In order that we would accept the “rights of man” at the Council. How could we accept them? By
accepting Religious Liberty, which is one of the “rights of man.”
Hence, to accept Religious Liberty was in principle to accept the
“rights of man” within the Church. Now, the Church has always
condemned these declarations on the “rights of man” which have been made
against the authority of God.” (Conference, Long Island, New York,
November 5, 1983)

-“Everyone knows that in the Vatican an influential liberal-Masonic mafia is active, without whose “placet”
[approval] no change is possible. And so we have arrived at the present
moment of the Church in which the triumph of Liberalism is being
celebrated.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)

-“But, of course, I have no illusions: even if the pope wanted to make those corrections, he could not do so. That “liberal-Masonic mafia” to which I have already alluded cannot tolerate it…all the American newspapers wrote that, before
the Council, Cardinal Bea, the founder of the Vatican Secretariat for
ecumenism, met the leaders of the most influential Jewish-Masonic lodge
at the Hotel Astoria in New York and asked them what they expected of
the Council. “A statement on religious liberty,” they told him.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)

-“It's very difficult to say, "This man is a Freemason," "This man is a Freemason," or "This man is a Freemason." We don't know. It's very difficult. It
is certain that there are some cardinals, some bishops, cardinals in
the Curia, or monsignors or secretaries of congregations in Rome that
are Freemasons. That is certain because the Freemasons themselves have
said that. They have said that they have in their lodge some priests and
bishops.It is certain that there are some cardinals and many
monsignors in Rome who do the same work as the Freemasons; they have the
same thinking, the same mind. Willebrandt is Prefect of the
Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, and Archbishop Silvestrini is
the first secretary of Cardinal Casaroli who is Secretary of State—and
his right hand is Silvestrini. He is a great power in the Curia. He
nominates all the nuncios in the world. He has a very great influence
and he is probably a Freemason.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission,
Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

-“The City of Rome is no longer a sacred city. This is evident. They have fallen under the thumb of Masonry, and of those liberal ideas
- "two centuries" as Cardinal Ratzinger said - and now they are
supplying water for the mill of the revolution against Our Lord Jesus
Christ.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

-“Would not Cardinal Suenens be right in declaring that this Council has been the French Revolution of the Church! (I Accuse the Council)

-“We know now with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that
we are dealing with a ‘diabolical hand’ which is located at Rome, and
which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And
this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience... I
believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present
themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals... “Are you with
the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I
dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry,
have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen
to them and to obey them?” (1978 Ordination sermon at Écône)

-“Had we found ourselves in the times of St. Francis of Assisi, the pope would have been in agreement with us. There was not an occupation by Freemasonry of the Vatican in its happier days.” (Albano, October 19, 1983)

-“
I would say that the first sensational event which manifested this
opposition even within the Church and within the Roman Curia, between the liberal program - masonic, it must be said
- and the program of the Church, of the faith of the Church and of
Tradition, is the opposition between Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal
Bea.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)

-“The adoption of liberal theses by a Council could not have occurred except in a non-infallible pastoral Council, and cannot be explained without there having been a secret, detailed preparation which
the historians will eventually discover to the great stupefaction of
Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman Catholic Church with the human Rome susceptible to infiltration by enemies robed in purple.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)

4) On the Modern Orientation-“Hence,
we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should
we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the
pope?" Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they
were carrying on the work of all the popes of the 19th and the first
half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)

-“Thus
those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our
Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant
us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are
seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation.
Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)

-“There are those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi, and there are those who are against. It is simple. It is clear. Those who are against are adopting the principles of the French Revolution, the modern errors. Those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi remain within the true Faith, within Catholic doctrine. Now you know very well that Cardinal Ratzinger has said that as far as he is concerned Vatican II is "an anti-Syllabus". Therewith the cardinal placed himself clearly amongst those who are against the Syllabus. If then he is against the Syllabus, he is adopting the principles of the Revolution. Besides, he goes on to say quite clearly, "Indeed
we have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened
herself up to, principles which are not hers but which come from modern
society," i.e., as everyone understands, the principles of 1789, the Rights of Man.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)

-“I
think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, -isn’t that right
- did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman
authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested
with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood,
they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed
with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is
serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is
necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these
principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism.
Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us,
since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the
subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible
otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors –
these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come
to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them
because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.” (Conference, September 22, 1988)

-“ But he, even if in certain respects he
carries the infallibility within his being pope, nevertheless by his
intentions and ideas he is opposed to it because he wants nothing more
to do with infallibility. He does not believe in it and he makes no acts
stamped with the stamp of infallibility. That is why they wanted
Vatican II to be a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because
they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive Truth. The
Truth must live and must evolve. It may eventually change with time,
with history, with knowledge, etc.,... whereas infallibility fixes a
formula once and for all, it makes—stamps—a Truth as unchangeable. That
is something they can't believe in, and that is why we are the
supporters of infallibility and the Conciliar Church is not. The Conciliar Church is against infallibility—that's for sure and certain. Cardinal
Ratzinger is against infallibility. The pope is against infallibility
by his philosophical formation. Understand me rightly!” (One Year After
the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“For the Second Vatican
Council, Pope Paul VI did not use the principle of dogmatic
infallibility. He was satisfied with declaring it pastoral. The
conciliar popes are unable to use their doctrinal infallibility because
the very foundation of infallibility is to believe that a truth must
be fixed forever and can no longer change: it must remain as it is. John Paul II, even more than Paul VI, does not believe in the immutability of truth.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“I
said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even
if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the
1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries
in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It
is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically
opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the
human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We
cannot get along together!’ (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548)

-“I
waited until June 5th to write to the Pope: I regret, but we cannot go
along with this. You do not have the same goal as us. In making an
accord, your goal is to bring us back to the Council. Mine, on the other
hand, is to keep us outside the Council and your influence.” (Flavigny, France, December 1988, Fideliter No. 68, p.15)

-“But however it may be, we are convinced of this, it
is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with
the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novelties, we are
convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot
work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from
the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

-“We are not up against a little thing. It is not enough for them to tell us: “You may say the old Mass, but you have to accept it [the Council].” No, it is not only that [the Mass] which divides us, it’s doctrine. That’s
clear. That is what is so serious about Dom Gerard’s [choice], and
that’s what did him in. Dom Gerard never saw anything but the liturgy
and monastic life. He does not see clearly the theological problems
with the Council, with religious freedom. He does not see the malice of
these errors.” (Fideliter No.66, September-October 1988, pp. 12-14)

-“This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact!
How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this
change? How is it possible that the Pope can sign this constitution [on
liturgical change]? It is a deep mystery.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)

5) The Conciliar Church-"This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church." (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

-“To
be publicly associated with this sanction [of excommunication] which is
inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its
integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of
orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to
know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a
counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

-“We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus,
with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication
by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only
be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to
be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been
blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better
than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)

-"It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)

-“It
is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s
impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors.
This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

-“John Paul II now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.”(Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)

-“What
could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the
Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our
whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar
Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That
Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the
Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new
priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that
affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar
Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops,
priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate
themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

- “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)

-“Such
things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself
inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we
talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion.
It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who
make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the
world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely
swamped. I would have been able to do nothing...” (One Year After the
Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It
is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the
Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying
to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic
Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having
wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic
Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always
did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August 1989)

-“Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“But the Church against her past and her Tradition is
not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal,
ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, p.547)

“How
can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is,
there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church
is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 8, 1978)

-“I remark, first of all, that the expression "Conciliar Church" comes not from me but from H.E. Mgr. Benelli who, in an official letter, asked that our priests and seminarians should submit themselves to the "Conciliar Church." I
consider that a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows
itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the Liturgical
Reform as well. Protestants themselves say that it is so, and Mgr.
Bugnini himself admits it implicitly when he states that this Liturgical
Reform was conceived in an ecumenical spirit.” (Conference, January 11, 1979)

-“The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A
new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is
opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and
heretical.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, July 8, 1987)

-“Well,
we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are
of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We
are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship,
its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the
'ecumenical Bible' - these things we do not accept.” (Sermon, July 29, 1976)

-“…since they
have put us out of an official Church which is not the real Church,
[but] an official Church which has been infested with Modernism; and
so we believed in the duty of disobedience, if indeed it was
disobedience! To obey, but to obey the immemorial Church, to obey all
the popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church…” (Ordination Sermon, June
27, 1980)

-“It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council
and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside
communion with the Church. But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.” (I Accuse the Council, p. xiii)

-“Henceforth,
the Church no longer accepts the one true Church, the only way of
eternal salvation. It recognizes the other religions as “sister
religions”. It recognizes as a right derived from the nature of the
human person that “man is free to choose his religion,” and consequently
the Catholic State is no longer admissible. Once this new principle
is admitted, then all the doctrine of the Church must change: its
worship, its priesthood, its institutions. For until now, everything
in the Church manifested that she alone possesses the Truth, the Way,
the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom she possesses in person in the
Holy Eucharist, present, thanks to the continuation of His Sacrifice. The
complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church
has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who
operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to
this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates
it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last
June 25th, and enter into schism.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)

6) Rome Cannot be Trusted-“For
fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its
place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We
ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of
this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a
piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

- “When they say they [Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter] don’t have to give anything up,
that’s false. They have given up the ability to oppose Rome. They
cannot say anything anymore. They must remain silent given the favours
that have been granted them. It is now impossible for them to expose the
errors of the Conciliar Church. Softly, softly they adhere, even be it
only by their Profession of Faith that is requested by Cardinal
Ratzinger. I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book
written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to
justify it. From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever
so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council,
because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very
dangerous situation” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)

-“The
bishops concerned - the supposedly conservative bishops - are wholly
supportive of the Council and of the post-Conciliar reforms, of
ecumenism and of the charismatic movement. Apparently, they are being a
little more moderate and showing slightly more traditional religious
sentiment, but it does not go deep. The great fundamental principles of
the Council, the errors of the Council, they accept them and put them
into practice. That is no problem for them. On the contrary, I would
go so far as to say that it is these conservative bishops who treat us
the worst. It is they who would the most insistently demand that we
submit to the principles of the Council.” (One Year After the
Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“For them there is no question of abandoning the New Mass. On the contrary. That is obvious. That
is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver
to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far.
We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a
maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of
Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger
threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to
avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves
in the hands of those professing these errors.” (One Year After the
Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

-“I admit that the optimism I showed regarding the Council and the Pope was ill-founded.” (Letter to Andre Cagnon, January 6, 1988, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, p.331)

-“There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and
it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No
rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics
who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no
rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this
rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot
do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of
St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain
incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually... That
they give us back everything. That they give up their liberalism, that
they come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the
Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence
of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At
that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we
are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples. But
as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with
the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will
string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their
traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

-“That is why, taking
into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce
Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II
and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to
say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have
evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of
the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting
ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the
hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and
the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.” (Sermon June 30, 1988)

-“For them, their goal is to divide Tradition.
They already have Dom Augustin, they have de Blignièreres, and now they
have Dom Gérard. This weakens our position still further. It is their goal: divide to make us disappear.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That
is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points.
They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true
meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring
back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional.
That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted
that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution
in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not
aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of
thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from
the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the
revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops.
Well, that is exactly what will happen.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)

-“And I even wrote to him [Dom Gerard]. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we
must not have relations with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was
different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve.” (Interview
for Controverses, 1989)

-“It is time to take a second decision to face up to this Rome. What else can we do? And
if they insist that it is worse this time round, because this time it
could mean excommunication, well, I reply that the basic problem remains
unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition.” (Recommendations to the Four Bishops-Elect, June 12, 1988)

-“I
think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present
situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these
little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in
the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete
return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true. They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. But, as the Cardinal says, they have gone a bit too far; they have to find a little balance.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

-“Upon reflection,
it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us
within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion
during these meetings.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988)

-“It
is obvious that by putting themselves in the hands of the present
conciliar authorities, they [Ecclesia Dei priests] implicitly accept the
Council and the reforms that came from it, even if they receive
privileges which remain exceptional and provisional. Their acceptance
stops them saying anything. The bishops are watching them.” (Letter to Fr. Daniel Couture, March 18, 1989)

-“Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith,
by saying: Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to
re-enter in the official public structure of the Church. Let us be
silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let
us not speak about the malice of the [new] Mass anymore. Let us close
our mouths and say nothing anymore. Let’s not be opposed to that. Let’s
not say anything anymore about the issues of religious liberty, of human
rights and of ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent and like that
we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will
please those who are in the Church. We are going to re-enter like that
into the Church, and once we will be inside the Church, you will see, we
will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to
do that… This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure
and under superiors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon
as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They
have all the authority.” (Conference December 21, 1984)

--“We
cannot place ourselves under an authority which has liberal ideas,
which will necessarily lead us, little by little, by force of
circumstances, to accept liberal ideas and all the consequences of these
liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, the changes in the liturgy, the
changes in the Bible, the changes in the catechism – all the changes…
We say: But they fought against the catechism!... This is simply
‘putting on the brakes’ because it goes so far that it was necessary to
‘put on the brakes’ a bit. And the same for the theology of liberation,
the same for all that is happening now in the Church and which, of
course, frightens them a bit. The consequences of their own principles
frighten them. So they ‘put on the brakes’ on the right and on the left,
but they are determined to keep liberal ideas. There is no question of
changing the liberal ideas.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)

“Although
Conciliar Rome’s lying has often been proven to be a fact, it is never
useless [for them] to try, since they will always find some who will
take the bait.” (Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)

“Most of our priests, seminarians and faithful do not delude themselves and are convinced that it is impossible to trust the authorities of the Conciliar Church for as long as they profess such errors.”(Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)

- Fideliter:
Since the Episcopal Consecrations in June of 1988 there have been no
more contacts with Rome, however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi
telephoned you saying: “We must come to an agreement. Make a little
apology to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you”. Then why not try this final step, and why does it seem impossible to you?Archbishop Lefebvre: It is absolutely impossible in the present climate in Rome which is becoming worse and worse. We must be under no illusions. The principles now directing the Conciliar Church are more and more openly contrary to Catholic doctrine. … Lastly, the
Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All the false ideas of the Council
are continuing to develop and to be re-stated with ever more clarity.
They are more and more coming out into the open. It is therefore
absolutely unthinkable that we should accept to collaborate with such a
hierarchy. (Fideliter no. 79 January – February 1991)

7) On Ecumenism-“Ecumenism
is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecumenical, she is
missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal
of the ecumenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to
remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church.” (April 14, 1978)

-“… and this, it is really the modern heresy, that we can really designate under this new term, for it really seems that there is a
new heresy in addition to modernism, liberalism, and all those old
errors, it seems to me that we can define this modern error: ecumenism,
this false ecumenism.” (Conference at Econe, May 16, 1978)

-“Then came this abominable ecumenism which is nothing but the means to penetrate liberal ideas within the Church,
because it is the principle of religious liberty, a principle which is
in the constitution, in the declaration of human rights.” (Conference,
December 21, 1984)

- "We want to be in perfect unity with the
Holy Father, but in the unity of the Catholic Faith, because there is
only this unity that can unite us. But not this kind of ecumenical
union, a sort of liberal ecumenism, because I think this is what best
defines modern tendencies and what we could almost express as the
'modern heresy.' As I had the occasion to say in Essen, I think that
what best defines the whole crisis in the Church is really this liberal
ecumenical spirit. I say liberal ecumenism because there is a certain
ecumenism that, if properly defined, could be acceptable. But liberal
ecumenism, such as is practiced by the present Church and especially
since Vatican II, necessarily carries true heresies." (Conference of April 14, 1978)

-“The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)

“In
this world, there are forces opposed to Our Lord, and to his reign.
Satan and all the auxiliaries of Satan, conscious or unconscious, refuse
this reign, this way of salvation and fight for the destruction of the
Church. Thus the Church is engaged by her Divine Founder in a gigantic
combat. All means were and are employed by Satan to triumph. One of
the last, extremely efficacious stratagems is to destroy the combative
spirit of the Church by persuading her that there are no more enemies,
and that we must put down our arms and enter into a dialogue of peace
and cordiality. This fallacious truce will permit the enemy to
penetrate everywhere and corrupt the forces of the Church. This truce is
liberal ecumenism, a diabolical instrument of auto-destruction of the
Church. This liberal ecumenism will result in the neutralisation of
the arms which are the liturgy with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the
Sacraments, the breviary, the liturgical feasts, the neutralisation and
ceasing of the seminaries…” (Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper)

8) On Obedience- “Satan’s
master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles
introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself,
placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent
contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed,
disasters will multiply within the Church. […] We must acknowledge that the trick has been well played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized. The Church will destroy Herself through obedience. […]
You must obey! Whom or what must we obey? We don’t know exactly. Woe
to the man who does not consent. He thereby earns the right to be
trampled under-foot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything
which allowed him to live. He is a heretic, a schismatic; let him die –
that is all he deserves.” (October 13, 1974)

- “Satan has
really succeeded in pulling off a master stroke: he is succeeding in
having those who keep the Catholic Faith condemned by the very people
who should be defending and propagating it. […] Satan reigns through
ambiguity and incoherence, which are his means of combat, and which
deceive men of little Faith. Satan’s master stroke, by which he is
bringing about the auto-destruction of the Church, is therefore to use
obedience in order to destroy the Faith: authority against Truth.“ (October 13, 1974)

-“One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience.Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience.” (Interview, July 1978)

“How could we, by a blind and servile obedience, go along with these schismatics who ask us to collaborate in their enterprise of demolishing the Church?” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)

9)On Sedevacantism (post-1986 quotes)Q. - Implicitly, it seems that you are “sedevacantist”?

A. - No,
it's not because I say that the Pope is unfaithful to his task, that I
say there isn’t a Pope anymore, or that I say he is a formal heretic. I
think that it is necessary to judge the men of current Rome and those
who are under their influence the same way the bishops, Pope Pius IX and
St. Pius X considered liberals and modernists.

Q. – How did they consider them ?

A. - Pope
Pius IX condemned liberal Catholics. He even said this terrible
sentence: "Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.” What
more could he say? However, he did not say: all liberal Catholics are
excommunicated, are outside the Church and must be denied Communion. No, he considered these men as "the worst enemies of the Church," and yet, he did not excommunicate them.

The holy pope, Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, also
dealt as severe a judgment on modernism, calling it the "synthesis of
all heresies." I do not know if it is possible to bring a more severe
judgment to condemn a movement! But he did not say that all
modernists would from now on be excommunicated, outside the Church, and
that they had to be refused Communion. He condemned some.

Also, I think that, like these two popes, we must judge them severely, but not necessarily considering them as being outside the Church. That
is why I do not want to follow the “sedevacantists” who say: they are
modernists; modernism is the crossroads of heresies; so modernists are
heretics; so they are no longer in communion with the Church; so there
isn’t a Pope anymore...

We cannot make a judgment with such implacable logic. There is, in this way of judging, passion and a little pride. Let us judge these men and their errors in the same way as the popes themselves did.

The pope is modernist, that’s certain, like Cardinal Ratzinger and many men of his entourage. But let us judge them like Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X judged them. And
so this is why we continue to pray for the Pope and to ask God to give
him the graces he needs to accomplish his task. (Interview given to Pacte, 1987)

-"So
what is our attitude? It is clear that all those who are leaving us or
who have left us for sedevacantism or because they want to be submitted
to the present hierarchy of the Church all the while hoping to keep
Tradition, we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible.Us,
we say that we cannot be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority and
keep Tradition. They say the opposite. They are deceiving the faithful.
Despite the esteem we may have for them, there is of course no question
of insulting them, but we do not want to engage in polemics and we
prefer not to deal with them anymore. It is a sacrifice we have to make.
But it did not start today, it has been going on for twenty years.

All
those who separate from us, we are very affected by it, but we really
cannot make another choice if we want to keep Tradition. We must be
free from compromise as much with regard to sedevacantists as with
regard to those who absolutely want to be submitted to the
ecclesiastical authority.” (Conference, Flavigny, December 1988; Fideliter, March/April 1989)

-"Unlike sedevacantists, we act vis-a-vis the Pope as vis-a-vis the Successor of Peter. We address ourselves to him as such, and we pray as such. The
majority of faithful and traditional priests also feel that it is the
prudential and wise solution: to recognize that there is a successor on
the throne of Peter, and that it is necessary to strongly oppose him, because of the errors he spreads." ("Apres les ralliements sonnera l’heure de vérité," Fideliter 68, March 1989, p. 13).

-“I think, nevertheless, that we need a link with Rome.
It is still there in Rome where we find the succession of Peter, the
succession of the apostles, of the apostle Peter, of the primacy of
Peter and of the Church. If we cut this link, we are really like a boat
which is cast off to the mercy of the waves, without knowing anymore to
which place we are attached and to whom we are attached. I think
it is possible to see in the person who succeeds all the preceding
popes, since if he occupies the see, he was accepted as Bishop of Rome
at Saint John Lateran. Now it is the Bishop of Rome who is the successor
of Peter; he is recognized as the successor of Peter by all the bishops
of the world. Good! What you want? We can think that he is really the
successor of Peter, and in this sense, we attach ourselves to him and
through him to all his predecessors, ontologically so to speak. And
then, his actions, what he does, what he thinks and the ideas he
spreads; that is another thing, of course. It is a great sorrow for the
Catholic Church, for us, that we are forced to witness such a thing. But
I think that this is the solution that corresponds to the reality.

The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution: it poses a lot of problems,
because if since Pope Paul VI there were no popes, then all the
cardinals that were made by these popes are invalidly made; so the votes
they made as cardinals, members of the Conclave, are void; and who will
then re-establish the link with John XXIII?; and even if we think that
John XXIII wasn’t pope either, then we have to go back to Pius XII. Who
is going to re-establish the tie? Because if these cardinals were
invalidly-made cardinals, they cannot elect the future Pope. Who is
going to designate the new pope? We are completely lost! It is not
surprising that in these circles there have been groups that have made a
pope. It is logical. Let us keep a little the solution of common sense
and the solution that the faithful inspire in us.

Every time that
there were stories of sedevacantism that caused a little trouble in the
Society, I must say, well, on the whole, we can say that the faithful
did not follow. These faithful followed us, followed the solution of the
Society, And I think that if one day we all of a sudden took the
decision - the authorities of the Society, the majority of priests – and
said “it is clear now, we affirm that there is no Pope,” the faithful
would not follow us. Most of the faithful would not follow us! With good
reason. Look at Bordeaux for example, when Fr. Guepin left with Father
Belmont, well they thought that they were going take two-thirds of the
parish with them. They had two or three families, that’s all. No, no!
The faithful have the sense of the faith. See how they reacted to the
episcopal consecrations. The faithful have the sense of the faith. They
have good sense and the sense of the faith. We can rely on the judgment
of our good Christians, our good faithful.”( Conference, priests’
retreat, 1989)

____________________________________________________________

-“And
then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all
the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other
and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good
ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum
in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not
Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous!
ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cum summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed. "We
therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and
we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and
to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without
blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May
it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity,
and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our
Holy Father the Pope."

It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With
Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those
who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent
where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor
the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic
Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of
course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and
Apostolic Orthodox faith!

Then he [Dom Guillou] had a note about that to clarify a little: "In
the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the
UNA CUM or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no
longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the
need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman
canon.Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope
in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised,
infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation
from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.Let
us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary
than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLICUM AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES INSANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."

It
is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the
Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints!
This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe
sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there
are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily
believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of
the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council
never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the
infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that
throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in
this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear,
he says it himself! He said it explicitly.

Then we must not keep
this idea which is false which a number of Catholics, poorly
instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer
understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to
expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. (Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989)

-“The
issue concerning the Pope is obviously a great mystery. It is probably
something that you think about often and that cannot be eliminated. It is a serious problem, perhaps the most serious of the current situation of the Church. So,
the declarations of the Pope, his acts, the ecumenical acts that he did
and that he redoes many times during his travels and during his
receptions at the Vatican, his statements, everything throw us into
anguish. Then, a certain number of traditionalists believe that they
have to conclude that: “the Pope is not the Pope. This is not possible.
He is heretical. He is schismatic. He cannot be the Pope, so there is no
more Pope.” They consider the seat as vacant. This logic may be too
simple, too mathematical. The complexity of things in reality is often
much greater than we think.

See for yourselves, in the
reading that we are making you do on the semi-rationalists,
semi-liberals. We are dealing with people who mix up truth and error,
who live in a continual contradiction. If you read the book on
liberalism of cardinal Billot, you see that the cardinal defines
precisely what a liberal is: a man who is in contradiction all the time,
a man who constantly contradicts himself and who lives in
contradiction. He is always two-faced. And so, they are dangerous
people. This is what Pope Pius IX said. Pope Pius IX considers them as
the greatest danger in the church because they mislead the faithful.
Sometimes, we believe that they are traditional and that they conform to
the truth of the Church, and then, all of a sudden, they fall into
error and lead people into error. It is very, very dangerous. They
scandalize and lead millions of faithful into error.

So,
personally, I believed, during all these years, for twenty years, in
having to act as if the Pope was Pope, in not asking myself deeper
questions, in having to act, in practice, as if the Pope was the Pope. I
would say: "I recognize the Pope as the Pope of the Holy Catholic
Church.” This is why I have never refused to go to Rome when I was summoned there. The
books edited by Madiran on The savage condemnation of Archbishop
Lefebvre and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy Office well prove that
[...] I have considered the authority of the Pope as if he was the Pope.
And then, I often appealed to him, I wrote I do not know how many times
to Pope Paul VI and to Pope John Paul II, and then to the offices and
to the congregations and to the presidents of the congregations in
charge of fixing these problems. I think that this is the wisest attitude and the most consistent with the spirit of the Church.” (Easter Retreat, Econe, April 11, 1990)

____________________________________________________________

-“I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There, also, people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.”

Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but
there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations,
contacts before and after, which make you little by little, change your
ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it
constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one
frequents a milieu.” (Fideliter No. 79, January/February 1991)

Pre-1986 Quotes:“As
long as I don’t have evidence that the Pope is not the Pope, well then
the presumption is for him, the presumption is for the Pope. I am
not saying that there can be no arguments that can put a doubt in
certain cases, but there has to be evidence that is not only a valid
doubt. And amongst people who defend these ideas and who have these
ideas, they change arguments, first it is one argument, and then it is
another; this argument is not sufficiently valid, we take another
argument. If the argument was not valid, then it was doubtful. And if it is doubtful, we do not have the right to draw enormous consequences, considerable consequences...” (Archbishop Lefebvre, January 16, 1979)

10) On the New Oath of Fidelity which includes a Profession of Faith-“Firstly, [in the Oath of Fidelity] there is the Credo which
poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and
second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known
things from a theological point of view. It is the third section
which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the
bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that
this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council.
It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which,
of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

"As
it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit
of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement.
It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to
present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath
suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third
section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those
who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state
their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."

"No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One
may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the
text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us,
it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal
Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit
to the Council.

"And so, I think now they are regaining lost
ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the
seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and
by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the
obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.

"Differently from in the Protocol,
in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the
Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

11) On the New Code of Canon Law-“And in fact, there is even an additional obstacle, which is the
new Code of Canon Law, which has been made in the same spirit I’ve just
been speaking to you about, the spirit of the Council, a bad spirit.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)

-“Another grave problem now undermining
the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon Law is very
serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

12) The New Mass is intrinsically evilIn April 1974, before the Archbishop had reached a decision about the New Mass, he stated:

“Is the Mass really intrinsically evil? If
the Mass was intrinsically evil, intrinsically, I say, well one cannot
do an intrinsically evil act, an intrinsically evil act is always
forbidden: But if the Mass is not intrinsically evil, but is evil by
circumstances, by what surrounds it, by certain prayers, because the
Mass is not what it should be, and so as circumstances can change, can
be modified, ... it is obvious that with them, I think it is better to
abstain, not to go to Mass for a whole month rather than go to Masses
like that, that's for sure!”

By June 24, 1981, the Archbishop had reached a conclusion on the New Mass and said:

“…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by
this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our
faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the
actions. They wanted to be ecumenical to such a point, to bring
themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in
the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This
diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise?
… Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it
is not possible.” (this extract can be found on pp. 224 in Dr. David Allen White’s, The Horn of the Unicorn).

Other extracts from the Archbishop’s conferences on the New Mass on June 23/24/25, 1981:

“The liturgical reform consisted ultimately in taking a Protestant text, while affirming that one does not deny the truths the Protestants deny and, by
virtue of the negation of these truths, they made this Novus Ordo…. the
modernist liturgists who entered the Church found nothing better than
to take the Protestant text and say: We do not deny the truths
that the Protestants deny ... We do not deny the truths, but we take the
same text, because this text has no formal heretical text! These texts were made by virtue of the negation of these truths, but they do not explicitly deny them, so they then say: We are not doing something heretical by taking these texts, but us, we do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny! ... I
do not see how one can say: This [liturgical] reform is only evil in a
purely accidental way, in a purely external or extrinsic way. In my opinion, the protestant reform, this Mass of Taizé is
certainly evil because it no longer affirms truths … it is a poisoned
mass. A poisoned mass, because when one no longer affirms the truly
Catholic truths of the Mass, as the Protestants wanted, little by little
faith in these truths also disappears. This, I would say, is so
obvious, so obvious in all the consequences...”

“…we
cannot, in three conferences, say everything on internal
characteristics, on the similarities with Protestant texts in an
ecumenical spirit, and thus of the danger which the [New] Mass entails
for the Faith because of this diminution of the affirmation of the faith, a diminution of the affirmation of the dogmas which are essential to the Mass.… it [the New Mass] is not formally heretical, but indirectly it favors heresy because it puts you in a
climate that no longer affirms the fundamental truths of the Mass ,
which no longer sufficiently affirms the fundamental truths of the Holy
Mass.”

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass
of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays?
Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...

I reply:Just
because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you
if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little
by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will
become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they
will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the
Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since
the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense
of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian
spirituality. There is no longer any asceticism, no longer a combat
against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to
combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against
everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go."

TRADCATKNIGHT VIDEOS!

TCK Youtube Channel

TRADCATKNIGHT- TOP 3 CATHOLIC YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Archbishop Lefebvre

“This Second Vatican Council Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.”

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Archbishop Lefebvre

“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. ….Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion.”

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON TUMBLR!

TCK Facebook

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON PINTEREST

Archbishop Lefebvre

That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...

Fr. Hesse Summary on Vatican II

Vatican II = Heretical & Schismatic

Exposing Vatican II & New Mass, Fr. Villa

Archbishop Lefebvre

“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible'-these things we do not accept."

Traditional Quotes & Prayers

The Real 3rd Secret of Fatima

Inlcudes Vatican II and the soon Apostate Church..."...because Fatima is a very apocalyptic message. It says that no matter what happens there are going to be terrible wars, there are going to be diseases, whole nations are going to be wiped out, there are going to be 3 days darkness, there are going to be epidemics that will wipe out whole nations overnight, parts of the earth will be washed away at sea and violent tornadoes and storms. It's not a nice message at all." Fr Malachi Martin

SSPX Marian Corps Donations

Marian Corps-Australasia

Fr. Chazal

Fr. Girouard

Or send a cheque made out to Fr. Patrick Girouard at : P.O.Box 1543, Aldergrove, BC, V4W 2V1, Canada.

St. Marcel Initiative

Or, if you prefer, in the U.S., make your contribution by telephone, toll free: 855-4-S. Marcel (855.476.2723), or internationally, by sending your donation directly to donations@stmarcelinitiative.com via PayPal.

TCK TESTIMONIALS

Eric Gajewski, Founder of DefeatModernism(formerly known as Defeat the Heresies)

Resistance Forum

True Traditionalist Forum

Pope XII: “Suicide Of Altering the Faith In Her Liturgy…..”

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'"

ALEXA RANK

Find The Rank Of Any Website

Current Crusaders Online Worldwide (RealTime)

St. Bernard:

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!

How secure, I say, is life when death is anticipated without fear; or rather when it is desired with feeling and embraced with reverence! How holy and secure this knighthood and how entirely free of the double risk run by those men who fight not for Christ! Whenever you go forth, O worldly warrior, you must fear lest the bodily death of your foe should mean your own spiritual death, or lest perhaps your body and soul together should be slain by him.

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; and likewise the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Now it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory--to have conquered a man while yielding to vice, and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you!

But what of those who kill neither in the heat of revenge nor in the swelling of pride, but simply in order to save themselves? Even this sort of victory I would not call good, since bodily death is really a lesser evil than spiritual death. The soul need not die when the body does. No, it is the soul which sins that shall die.

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port.

Once he finds himself in the thick of battle, this knight sets aside his previous gentleness, as if to say, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord; am I not disgusted with your enemies?" These men at once fall violently upon the foe, regarding them as so many sheep. No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume on their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them the victory.

.

.

Saint Athanasius

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ..."You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. "Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."